02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 31
Volume 4(1/2): 31–58
Copyright © 2004 SAGE
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470593104044086
articles
Toward a general theory of creativity in
advertising: Examining the role of divergence
Robert E. Smith
Indiana University, USA
Xiaojing Yang
Indiana University, USA
Abstract. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of creativity in
advertising by practitioners and scholars, no systematic research has been conducted
to define ad creativity or examine how it relates to ad effectiveness. The present
research attempts to fill this gap by reviewing past literature in psychology, marketing
and advertising. From this base, a model is developed which defines a creative ad as
both divergent (i.e. novel or unusual) and relevant. The effects of divergence and (to
a lesser extent) relevance on consumer processing and response are examined and a
series of theoretical propositions are developed. Next, a general theory of creativity in
advertising is developed that calls for research in five primary areas: advertising as a
communication process, management process, societal process, group process, and
personal process. Finally, contributions to advertising theory and implications for
future research are discussed, along with commentary from a prominent advertising
executive. Key Words advertising advertising theory creativity divergence
•
•
•
•
Introduction
The relationship between creativity and advertising is long, rich and textured.
Creativity is considered to be an important determinant of advertising effectiveness and advertising textbooks normally devote one or two chapters to creative
strategy and tactics. Major industry awards (e.g. Clio’s) are given to ‘creative’
advertisements and salaries to ‘creative’ personnel represent a considerable
portion of ad agencies’ expenses. In addition, there is a strong focus on creativity
in advertising trade papers like Advertising Age, Ad Week and even Creativity
31
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 32
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
(published by Ad Age). Indeed, few advertising and promotion executives would
question the centrality of a good creative strategy and execution (Martin, 1995).
Despite the importance attributed to creativity, there has been very little
research on this issue in marketing and advertising. Indeed, Zinkhan (1993)
surveyed the previous 15 years of the Journal of Advertising and found that only
five published papers (1.4 percent) dealt explicitly with creativity. Zinkhan (1993)
concluded by noting the importance of creativity and calling for more research on
creativity in advertising. Unfortunately, this lack of systematic theory development in advertising creativity has created a vacuum in the literature. Specifically,
major reviews of the conceptual space of creativity lack any significant reference
to advertising (for example, see the Handbook of Creativity [Sternberg, 1999] or
Creativity in Context [Amabile, 1996]). These gaps highlight the current lack
of development of theories of advertising creativity. Accordingly, the major goals
of this article are to:
• define creativity and its two major determinants – divergence and relevance;
• develop the divergence component in greater detail;
• examine conceptual issues regarding ad divergence and consumer processing/
response; and
• develop a structural format for a general theory that considers the broader interface between creativity and advertising.
Defining creativity
Definition of creativity
According to Webster’s dictionary to ‘create’ means: to bring into existence, to
invest with a new form, to produce through imaginative skill. The Encyclopedia
Britannica uses a similar definition: the ability to make or otherwise bring into
existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or
device, or a new artistic object or form. These definitions highlight two primary
determinants of creativity. First, there must be something new, imaginative,
different, or unique – this component is generally referred to as ‘divergence’.
Second, the divergent thing produced must solve a problem or have some type of
‘relevance’.
Ad creativity versus personal creativity
People are creative when they produce ideas, solutions, inventions, or products
that are divergent and relevant. Note that divergence and relevance are determined by context or the ‘social recognition criteria’ (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; MacKinnon, 1962). This means that an ad that is creative to one
group (e.g. senior citizens) may not be considered to be creative by another group
(e.g. teenagers). Ultimately, ads are products of people, just like ideas and inventions. Accordingly, the concepts of divergence and relevance can be applied to
32
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 33
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
anything people create including advertisements. This is important because three
different types of creativity are related to advertising. First, there is the creative
team who develop and implement the creative strategy and actually produce the
ad. Second, there is the level of creativity that the ad is perceived to possess by the
target market. Third, there is the level of creativity in the audience members who
are exposed to the ad. While there are likely to be interactions among these three
types of creativity (as hypothesized below) the defining characteristics of creativity
– divergence and relevance – do not change. Instead, it is the context that changes.
In an attempt to note the important differences that do exist among these
contexts, the term ‘personal creativity’ will refer to the divergence/relevance of
creative talent (e.g. creative directors, copywriters, etc.); ‘ad creativity’ will refer
to the divergence/relevance of an ad (or campaign) as perceived by the target
market; and ‘consumer creativity’ will refer to the divergence/relevance of the
audience members exposed to the ad.
Creativity in psychology
One of the first formal definitions of creativity was developed by Guilford (1950)
who was interested in the relationship between creativity and intelligence.
Guilford believed that the standard IQ tests of the 1950s omitted important
cognitive functions – specifically the ability to think divergently and be creative.
‘Most of our problem solving in everyday life involves divergent thinking. Yet, in
our educational practices, we tend to emphasize teaching students how to find
conventional answers’ (Guilford, 1968: 8). To fully account for creativity,
Guilford (1956) developed the ‘Structure of Intellect Model’ which attempted to
organize all of human cognition along three dimensions:
1 Five thought processes or operations: (cognition, memory, evaluation, convergent production, divergent production);
2 Four types of content to which the operations can be applied: (figural, symbolic, semantic, behavioral);
3 Six products or results of the operations on the content: (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, implications).
The result is 120 (5 × 4 × 6) different mental abilities, many of which Guilford and
his associates devised tests to measure. In this model, creative thinking occurs
when divergent thoughts are produced. The divergent production system is
involved in 24 of the 120 mental abilities and thus represents an important cognitive domain. In this model, creativity is defined as divergent thinking and is an
important component of human intellect. This suggests that all consumers have
the potential to identify creative stimuli and respond favorably to them.
Abraham Maslow was another prominent psychologist to examine human
creativity. Maslow (1970, 1971) identified two stages of creativity. Primary
creativeness comes out of the unconscious and is the source of new discovery. This
is what Maslow called real novelty, and is equivalent to the divergence component
of creativity. Secondary creativeness is based on logic, common sense and reason-
33
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 34
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Table 1
Creativity as a function of divergence and relevance
Relevant
Non-relevant
Divergent
Non-divergent
Creative
Divergent but irrelevant
Relevant but common
Non-creative
ing and is built upon previous knowledge. This stage is equivalent to the relevance
component in most definitions of creativity. Thus, creativity is conceptualized as
a function of divergence and relevance. The first and most essential element of
creativity is divergence which ultimately stems from the ‘divergent production
system’. Once a divergent idea is produced, it must be shaped in a manner to
make it relevant (i.e. able to solve a problem, achieve a goal, etc.). This secondary
stage of creativity is determined by the ‘convergent production system’ in
Guilford’s Model (1956).
In a review of creativity definitions in psychology, Mumford and Gustafson
(1988) identified three major approaches. The common thread was again that
both divergence and relevance are needed for creativity. Their final conclusion
was that creativity can be defined as ‘the production of novel, socially valued
products’ (Mumford and Gustafson, 1988: 28) and this was consistent with the
earlier conclusions of Amabile (1983), Ghiselin (1963) and Harmon (1963). Thus,
the key determinants of creativity are displayed in the Table 1.
Creativity in advertising
In the marketing/advertising literature, creativity has been approached from a
variety of perspectives as summarized in Table 2.1 Similar to definitions in psychology, creativity in marketing is usually defined as having two characteristics:
divergence and relevance (sometimes called effectiveness). For example, Amabile
suggests that a ‘product or response will be judged creative to the extent that it
is a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand
. . .’ (1996: 5, emphasis added). Similarly, Tellis defines creativity as ‘productive
divergence’ (1998). Thus, because an ad has a specific goal, the level of creativity
is to some extent based on its ability to achieve that goal (Duke and Sutherland,
2001; Finke, 1995; Kover, 1995; Kover et al., 1995; Reid et al., 1998; Tellis, 1998;
Wells et al., 1995). This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that creative ads
are those that are perceived to be divergent and relevant.
34
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 35
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Table 2
Conceptualizations of ad creativity
Source
Divergence factor(s)
Relevance factor(s)
Effectiveness factor(s)
Jackson and
Messick (1965)
Unusualness
(i.e. infrequent)
Appropriateness (i.e.
fits its context),
Condensation (i.e.
warrants repeated
examination)
Transformation (i.e.
forces us to see
reality in a new way)
Sobel and
Rothenberg (1980)
Originality (i.e.
newness)
Value (i.e. worth)
Besemer and
Treffinger (1981);
Besemer and
O’Quinn (1986)
Novelty (i.e.
newness),
Elaboration and
synthesis (i.e.
stylistic details)
Resolution (i.e.
functionality)/
Appropriateness
(i.e. solves problem)
Amabile (1983)
Novelty
Appropriate, useful,
valuable
Haberland and
Dacin (1992)
Originality (i.e.
deviates from
expectations)
Meaningfulness (i.e.
conveys meaning),
Condensation (i.e.
warrants repeated
examination)
Reformulation (i.e.
modify brand
attitude)
Meaningfulness/
appropriateness/
relevance
(personal concerns
or interests)
Impact (stopping
power, connections
to ad)
Thorson and Zhao
Originality (Novelty
(1997); Wells (1989) of the creative
product)
Tellis (1998)
Divergent (different
from what is
currently done)
Duke (2000); Duke
and Sutherland
(2001)
Imaginativeness
Productive
(redeeming value,
contributes to
brand’s welfare)
External confluence
(similarity with similar
products); Internal
confluence (similarity
across executions
within a campaign)
35
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 36
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Conceptualization of divergence and creativity
Based on the psychological and marketing literature reviewed, creative ads are
defined as those that are both divergent and relevant.
Divergence
The first and most fundamental characteristic of ad creativity is divergence – the
ad must contain elements that are novel, different, or unusual in some way. While
the concept of divergence is clearly central to creativity it has received surprisingly
little development in marketing/advertising. Usually, it is represented as a onedimensional construct (e.g. originality or novelty) with little conceptual development (see summary in Table 2). This is an important omission because divergence
plays a major role and is a complex construct.
Relevance
While divergence is central to any definition of creativity, the ad also must be
relevant – it must be meaningful, appropriate or valuable to the audience. Thus,
relevance can be thought of as a stimulus property where some aspect of an
advertisement is important, meaningful, or valuable to the consumer. Normally,
relevance would be expected to be related to the brand/informational properties
of the ad (e.g. was useful information attained). However, relevance can also be
produced by execution elements such as music. Indeed, at least two specific types
of relevance can be important for advertising:
Ad–consumer relevance This type of relevance is achieved when stimulus properties of the ad create a meaningful link to the consumer. For example, using Beatles
music in an ad could create a meaningful link to Baby Boomers and, thereby,
make the ad relevant to them.
Brand–consumer relevance This type of relevance occurs when an ad creates a
meaningful link between the brand and the consumer. For example, the ad could
make the brand seem right by showing it being used in circumstances familiar to
the consumer (Laczniak and Muehling, 1993; Mishra et al., 1993; Thorson and
Zhao, 1997).
Effectiveness
A third characteristic found in some definitions of creativity in advertising is the
notion of effectiveness – the ad must be productive or capable of achieving its
goals. However, in this conceptualization, incorporating the notion of effectiveness confounds advertising creativity with its consequences. That is, creative ads
are defined by some researchers as ones that are effective at achieving their goals.
However, the primary reason why researchers and advertising practitioners are
36
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 37
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
interested in advertising creativity is as an explanation for why some ads are
more effective at achieving their goals than others. To make effectiveness part of
creativity itself is to eliminate its usefulness as an explanatory variable. It is illogical to say that ads are more effective because they are creative, if they are creative,
in part, because they are more effective. Therefore, we argue that notions of
effectiveness, productivity, and impact should not be part of the definition of ad
creativity.2
Ad versus brand elements
It is also important to identify two different types of ad elements. First, with few
exceptions, ads usually contain prominent brand-related (or ‘information’) elements. These include the persuasive message, pictures of the brand, showing new
uses for the product, and so on. In addition, the ad also contains some non-brand
(or ‘execution’ elements) that are not necessarily related to the brand. These
would include the layout and design, use of non-brand photographs or graphics,
color, music and other ‘peripheral’ cues. This conceptualization is consistent with
distinctions between execution factors and messages factors recognized in past
advertising research (e.g. Kim and Leckenby, 2002; Stewart and Furse, 1984).
Focus on divergence
While both divergence and relevance are determinants of ad creativity, relevance
has received extensive treatment in the advertising literature under the term
‘involvement’3 (Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984; Krugman, 1965, 1971; Laczniak and
Muehling, 1993; MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989; Mishra et al., 1993; Petty and
Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983; Thorson and Zhao, 1997). Conversely, divergence has received very little attention. Indeed, the studies summarized in Table
2 show that advertising applications of creativity have been primarily onedimensional in the development of the divergence construct. This is problematic
because divergence is the most primary element of creativity and needs to be
better understood and modeled. Accordingly, the next section develops the divergence component in significantly greater detail than previous advertising models.
Theoretical development of divergence
In the creativity literature, Guilford (1950, 1956) was one of the first to focus
on divergence and proposed several facets of creativity that reflect the divergence
and relevance components. Of the factors, seven were related to divergence:
sensitivity to problems, fluency (number of ideas), novelty, flexibility, synthesis,
redefinition/reorganization, and complexity; and one factor was related to
relevance: evaluation/shaping. Torrance (1972, 1987, 1988, 1990), who was also
interested in the psychometrics of divergence, spent years empirically testing the
components of Guilford’s (1950, 1956, 1967) model. Torrance focused on the
37
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 38
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Table 3
Determinants of divergence with examples
Factor
Definition
Advertising example
Fluency:
The ability to generate a large number of
ideas – more than expected.
Absolute Vodka® campaign,
‘Got Milk’ campaign
Flexibility:
The ability to generate different ideas.
The ability to shift from one type of
subject matter to another. Ideas that fall
outside the logical or expected.
Arm & Hammer® baking
soda and Bounce®
‘multiple use’ campaigns
Originality:
Ideas that are rare, surprising, or move
Apple® computer’s ‘1984’
away from the obvious and commonplace. Super Bowl ad, ‘Joe’ Isuzu®
The ability to break away from habit-bound ‘liar’ campaign
and stereotypical thinking.
Elaboration:
Thinking of unexpected details. The ability
to finish, extend, and detail basic ideas so
they become more intricate, complicated
or sophisticated.
‘Scratch and Sniff’ ads,
interactive ads
Resistance to
premature
closure:
The ability to keep ideas open and resist
quick, easy or obvious solutions. The
ability to keep working is essential for the
incubation processes to function.
Energizer® Bunny ‘keeps on
going’ campaign,
Folger’s® ‘soap opera’
(installment) campaign.
Unusual
perspective:
Seeing things from a different or unusual
outlook. Ability to produce internal
visualizations (see beneath the surface),
rich imagery, break or extend normal
boundaries, and provide unusual contexts.
Lamisil® ads using cartoon
‘fungus creature’, Bac’n Bits®
ads showing a cartoon dog’s
perspective
Synthesis:
The ability to bring together items by
Budweiser® ‘Frog’
combining, connecting, or blending
campaign, Current GE®
normally unrelated objects or ideas.
‘imagination at work’
Includes bold mental leaps and merging
print campaign
ideas freely without self-imposed restrictions.
Humor:
The ability to be expressive in a comical
Early Miller Lite® campaign,
way, to amuse people and make them laugh. recent ESPN® campaign
Richness and
colorfulness of
imagery:
The ability to arrange shapes and colors in
an attractive way. The ability to produce
artistic impressions or art of any kind.
High production value.
Early Infinity® ads
(forest scenes and classical
music), Michael Jackson
Pepsi® ads
Fantasy:
The ability to generate non-real ideas,
worlds, or creations, often marked by
highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
The ability to convey an idea through the
feeling and use of emotional, poignant,
and/or sensitive material.
On-star® ‘Batman’ ads,
Capital One ‘What’s in
your wallet’
Hallmark Card® ads,
Zoloft® campaign
Expression of
emotion:
continues
38
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 39
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Table 3 (cont.)
Determinants of divergence with examples
Factor
Definition
Advertising example
Empathic
perspective:
The ability to use an attitude or viewpoint
that understands the thoughts and feelings
of others.
Child abuse prevention ads,
Many medical product ads
Provocative
questions:
The ability to use analysis and queries that
are intended to incite, arouse, or elicit an
interesting response.
Bennington® campaign,
‘Teaser’ ads
Future
orientation:
The ability to prospect or envision
future possibilities; to see and express
future events.
Galyan’s campaign ‘What’s
Next,’ Sharper Image® ads
divergent production system and developed a subjective test to measure the main
indicators of creativity that has become the most widely used creativity test (Baer,
1993). After conducting many factorial studies Torrance (1987) identified 14
major determinants of divergence. Each factor is listed in Table 3 along with a
summary definition and advertising examples.
Accordingly, any model of creativity in advertising should cover the major
facets listed in Table 3. Together, these factors are conceived of as defining
characteristics of creativity rather than as reflections of it. That is, divergent thinking is a function of a person’s fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, resistance to premature closure, unusual perspective, synthesis and so on, rather than
the underlying cause of these characteristics.4
It is important to note that divergence can be used in the execution elements of
the ad (layout and design, celebrity spokespeople, unusual graphics, etc.) and/or
the brand/informational elements of the ad (clever copy, showing new uses for the
product, unusual transformations of the product, etc.).
Ad processing model
The studies summarized in Table 2 have shown little consistency in operationalizations of ad creativity. In addition, each study examined different aspects of
creativity with little consensus on the processing and response variables
employed. To provide a more theoretically precise approach, the MacInnis and
Jaworski (1989) ad model is used to identify the key stimulus, processing and
response variables.
39
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 40
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Pre-attentive processing
According to Greenwald and Leavitt (1984), ad processing begins with a ‘preattentive’ stage. When consumer involvement is low or ad clutter is high (both
conditions often apply in the marketplace) it is difficult for an ad to get noticed.
To achieve this goal the ad must be frequently repeated or include ‘colorful,
moving, novel, unexpected, or affect-evoking stimuli’ (Greenwald and Leavitt
1984: 584).
Motivation to process
Once the consumer’s attention has been drawn to the ad, holding it becomes the
next goal. In the MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) model, the consumer’s motivation, ability and opportunity to process the ad determine the amount of attention
given to it.
Attention/capacity
According to MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), attention reflects the level of focus
given to the ad, specifically, whether ad processing is a primary or secondary task.
As attention increases, greater amounts of working memory (i.e. short term
memory capacity) are allocated to the stimulus.
Depth of processing
This reflects the consumer’s level of understanding regarding the ad’s information
and ranges from simple message recognition to constructive processes like relating the message to one’s personal life, role-taking, or imagining the product in
use. Depth of processing has played a central role in determining the type of
encoding and ability to remember (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). In this model,
Level I codes are superficial (analog) codes that can be remembered via rehearsal.
Level II codes are more organized representations and take advantage of categorical structures to enhance recall (Ornstein and Trabasso, 1974). Level III codes
are creative or elaborate encodings (e.g. personal connections) that attach the new
information to existing knowledge structures, thus maximizing recall (Krugman,
1965).
Consumer response
In the MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) model, processing effects are linked directly
to consumer responses. These can be cognitive responses (e.g. thoughts about the
ad, brand, or the context), or affective responses (e.g. emotional response to the ad,
attitude toward the ad, and brand attitudes), that together determine purchase
intentions.
40
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 41
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Theoretical propositions
Divergence and consumer processing
One of the problems with past research on ad creativity is the lack of consideration for how divergence and creativity affect consumer processing. Often it is
assumed that creative ads attract more attention than non-creative ads but more
elaborate models and hypotheses have not been considered. Accordingly, the
discussion that follows examines variables that could be expected to explain or
moderate the effects of divergence and creativity on consumer processing and
response.
Contrast effect By definition, divergent ads are different and novel so at the most
basic level a contrast effect should be created. This contrast is produced via
the ad’s divergent, which makes it stand out from other ads and thus attracts
pre-attentive processing (such as orientation reactions) where the consumer
notices and directs processing resources to the ad. An example of a contrast effect
would be the Gap® ads that present no message but show their logo while playing
popular music. Thus it is predicted that:
P1a: Ads with high divergent will receive significantly more notice than ads with low divergence.
An interesting related hypothesis would be:
P1b: Divergence related to ad execution elements will play the bigger role in attracting attention, while divergence related to brand/message elements will play the bigger role in motivation
to process the message and depth of processing.
Closure effect Divergence should also increase the consumer’s motivation to
process an ad. This is because divergent stimuli are unusual and often ambiguous
and people have a basic need to know and understand (Maslow, 1970). In addition, previous research has shown that people have a need for closure and completion and are interested in ambiguous and unusual stimuli (Peracchio and
Meyers-Levy, 1994). For example, ‘teaser’ ads are specifically designed to create
ambiguity (and the resulting desire for closure), thereby increasing the consumer’s processing motivation.
P2: Consumers will have significantly higher motivation to process divergence ads than nondivergence ads in order to attain closure.
Correspondence effect Guilford (1950, 1956, 1967, 1968) developed the concept
of ‘creative continuity’ which suggests that all humans produce divergent cognitions and thus have some degree of creative potential:
Whatever the nature of creative talent may be, those persons who are recognized as creative
merely have more of what all of us have. It is this principle of continuity that makes possible
the investigation of creativity in people who are not necessarily distinguished. (Guilford, 1950:
446)
41
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 42
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Thus, creativity is seen as an innate cognitive resource that every consumer
possesses to some degree. In addition, creativity can be specific to a certain type of
divergence (e.g. a person can be high in verbal fluency but low in future orientation). An interesting question to examine is whether the effects of divergence are
increased when the criterion of ‘correspondence’ is achieved. Correspondence
occurs when the ad’s divergence matches up with the consumer’s divergence. For
example, ads rated high on imagination should have stronger effects on consumers with strong imaginations than on consumers with weak imaginations.
This proposition can be supported by implicit cognitions and attitude-function
literature. Research regarding implicit cognitions (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995)
has demonstrated that attitude objects related to self-identity will receive more
favorable responses (even when subconscious). From an attitude function perspective, people are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes toward objects that
express their self-identity (Shavitt, 1990).
There is also some evidence that different groups may show significant differences in their orientations toward divergence. Duke and Sutherland (2001) asked
award-winning creative professionals and advertising faculty to assess validity and
relevance for their ‘confluence’ model of creativity.5 Results showed that academics preferred different variations of divergence than creative professionals.6
Thus,
P3a: When an ad’s divergence corresponds with the consumer’s divergent production system,
the consumer will have significantly more motivation to process the ad.
P3b: When an ad’s divergence corresponds with the consumer’s divergent production system,
the consumer will have significantly more favorable responses to the ad.
The elaboration effect It is predicted above that divergent ads will cause consumers to try to achieve understanding and closure. It can be further predicted
that achieving closure for divergent ads will often require more processing depth.
Divergent ads should be more challenging to decode and interpret than convergent ads and thus require more elaborative processing to achieve understanding. As an example, McQuarrie and Mick (1992) examined ‘ad resonance’, which
is defined as a combination of wordplay and pictures that create ambiguous or
incongruent stimuli. Predictions of positive effects for ad resonance were based on
Berlyne’s (1971) work on the psychology of aesthetics that suggests ambiguous or
incongruent stimuli produce positive reactions. The underlying mechanism is
that ambiguity and incongruity trigger the consumer’s desire to decode the
message which results in a pleasurable response when understanding is achieved.
Both of these stimulus properties are among the ‘collative variables’ found to
stimulate arousal.
For maximum brand effects the deep processing should be brand-related rather
than execution-related. An example of a divergent ad producing deep processing
(of both the ad and the brand) is the famous ‘1984’ Big Brother Apple® ad.
Although this ad was shown only once during the Super Bowl, its creative and
layered meanings are still being studied and analyzed 20 years later.
42
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 43
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
P4: Ads rated high on brand-related divergence will receive significantly more processing depth
than ads rated low on brand-related divergence.
Resistance to wear-out Another way for divergence to influence ad processing is
by resisting ad wear-out. Ad wear-out occurs when ads are repeated frequently in
the marketplace (MacInnis et al., 2002; Pieters et al., 1999). This causes adaptation
to the stimulus over time and decreases consumer interest and motivation to
process the ad. At the extreme, ads become monotonous, and ultimately can
become disliked – causing negative consumer responses. It seems reasonable to
predict that at least some types of divergence (e.g. originality or fantasy) can be
expected to wear out at a significantly slower rate than non-divergent ads.
P5: Some types of divergence should resist wear-out significantly longer than non divergent
ads.
Route to persuasion According to Petty and Wegener (1999), variables such as
divergence can play multiple roles in information processing and persuasion.
Divergence can serve as a peripheral cue when consumers do not have the motivation or ability to process information contained in the ad. In this case, the ads
are persuasive due to ‘affect transfer’ from the divergence in the ads. Specifically,
divergence is an important element of the ad’s ‘production value’ and it is well
known that perceptions of ad quality are transferred to ad attitudes (MacKenzie
et al., 1986). Note that the source of divergence in this case is more likely to be
associated with execution elements rather than with brand or message elements
(due to lack of central processing). This proposition is very consistent with the
way creativity has been developed in advertising textbooks (i.e. a device to
increase the consumer’s attention and attraction to the ad).
P6a: Divergence related to execution elements is most likely to serve as a peripheral cue in the
persuasion process.
However, divergence also can enhance the likelihood that consumers will elaborate the ad’s message. In essence, relevant divergence can serve as an argument for
consumers to be persuaded by the ad because it causes them to mentally consider
new and salient factors (e.g. deeper level of processing, more personal connections, etc.). Divergence and creativity’s role in the central route to persuasion
have not been contemplated or examined in the literature but may be more forcefully linked to brand responses like attitudes and purchase intentions.
P6b: Divergence related to brand/message elements can serve as a motive for central processing of the brand message.
Effects of divergence on consumer response
Cognitive and affective response It is predicted that divergent ads will produce
significantly more favorable cognitive and affective responses. This favorability
will result from the primary value of divergent stimuli. Researchers have long
acknowledged that consumers possess internal dispositions related to creativity.
43
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 44
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
For example, novelty-seeking (Finger and Mook, 1971), exploratory drive (Nissen,
1951), incongruity seeking (Hunt, 1963), innovative proneness (Rogers, 1957),
exploration ‘erg’ (Cattell, 1957), and variety seeking (Faison, 1977; Maddi, 1968)
are all examples of consumers seeking divergent stimuli. In addition, there is
strong evidence from social-psychology research that consumers can be expected
to produce and appreciate creative ideas (Guilford, 1967). Thus, people like new
things and produce divergent thoughts and ideas themselves. Therefore, it can be
predicted:
P7: Ads rated high on divergence will produce significantly more favorable cognitive and
affective responses.
This general effect can be examined more specifically depending on the nature of
the ad’s divergence. When divergence is tied to execution elements, the deeper
processing (P4) will be execution-related and should produce more desirable ad
responses (e.g. ad cognitions or AAd). However, such processing may distract consumers from the ad’s message (e.g. using Beatle’s music to attract the attention of
Baby Boomers may cause them to recall forceful personal memories that interfere
with message processing). Conversely, when divergence is message-related the
deep processing will produce more desirable brand responses (e.g. brand cognitions or AB).
P8a: When divergence is execution-related it will produce more favorable consumer responses
in terms of ad cognitions and ad attitudes than when divergence is brand-related.
P8b: When divergence is brand-related it will produce more favorable consumer responses in
terms of brand cognitions, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions than when divergence is
execution-related.
Memory of advertising Divergent ads are also expected to facilitate memory and
retrieval of ad and brand information. This proposition is based on the expected
increase in both attention (P1–P3) and processing depth (P4–P5). Both of these
variables have been linked to better encoding, transfer to long-term memory, and
accessibility/retrieval in the Levels of Processing model of memory (Craik and
Lockhart, 1972).
P9a: Consumers will have better memory for ads high in divergence (on execution elements)
than for ads low in divergence.
P9b: Consumers will have better memory for brands in ads with high divergence (on
brand/message elements) than for brands in ads with low divergence.
Effects of creativity – divergence plus relevance
Relevance has received significant treatment in the marketing/advertising literature. Research suggests that relevance can increase pre-attentive processing and
attention, motivation to process, and depth of processing (Greenwald and Leavitt,
1984; MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989). Thus, one can expect a main effect for
relevance and a main effect for divergence on ad processing and response. The
44
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 45
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
interesting issue is whether the main effects for divergence and relevance will
be simply additive or whether a fan-shaped interaction effect will occur where
creative ads (relevant and divergent) are unusually effective in gaining notice,
motivation and depth.
P10: Relevance and divergence will show a significant interaction effect on ad notice, motivation to process the ad, depth of ad processing, and consumer responses.
Moderating role of involvement
The effects of divergence are expected to be moderated by the level of consumer
involvement. In this model, involvement reflects a consumer’s continuing interest
in a brand. For example, consumers often experience an increase in involvement
right before and after purchase and become more attentive to brand stimuli and
ads. When involvement is low, the pre-attentive effects of divergence should be
magnified. This is because consumers will be attracted to the divergent execution
elements even if they are not currently in a purchase cycle for the product (i.e.
low brand involvement). Conversely, when consumer involvement is high, the
pre-attentive and attention effects of divergence will be minimized. This is
because the consumer is already attentive to the brand, so ad-related divergence is
less effective.
P11: An interaction effect is predicted for consumer involvement and divergence. When consumer involvement is low, the pre-attentive, attention and motivation effects of divergent
execution elements are significantly higher than when consumer involvement is high.
Managerial issues
The resource allocation hypothesis At a conceptual level one can think of how the
total resources in an ad are allocated between divergence elements and relevance
elements. The resources of an ad include the amount of space, time, budget and
so on. It seems likely that different communication-effects goals will require
different combinations of resource allocation for maximum effectiveness. For
example, in the early stages of the campaign where attention and awareness are
the goals, most of the ad’s resources should be devoted to divergence (especially
execution elements) to maximize contrast effects. As goals move up the hierarchy
of effects to interest and comprehension, more of the ad’s resources should be
devoted to relevance (especially brand/message elements) and less to divergence.
In addition, the divergence elements of the ad campaign can also be expected to
change as new goals are pursued. Specifically, during the beginning of the campaign most of the divergence should be related to execution elements to attract
attention. As goals move up the hierarchy of effects, the divergence should be
increasingly related to the brand or message elements (which will facilitate deeper
processing and better memory). Thus, future research should investigate the
optimal level of resource allocation for divergence and relevance elements for
different ad objectives throughout the campaign.
45
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 46
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
P12a: Different levels of ad divergence and relevance will be needed for different communication-effects goals.
P12b: Different types of ad divergence (execution-related versus brand-related) will be needed
for different communication-effects goals.
Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising
While the above model developed some of the key processing and response issues
associated with ad divergence, the interface between creativity and advertising
includes a much broader conceptual domain. Specifically, it is important to consider creativity in advertising from a number of different perspectives.
Creativity in the communication process
Advertising is a major form of communication between companies and their
customers. Issues involved here include how creativity affects persuasion, information processing, consumer response and what variables interact with creativity
to influence ad effectiveness. Processing issues were considered in detail above but
related issues include how to:
•
•
•
•
use creativity to position the image of the company;
introduce new products or brand extensions;
recommend new usages for their existing products;
encourage consumers to participate in promotional activities (e.g. sales promotions);
• recognize the possible negative effects of non-creative ads; and
• identify when consumers prefer creative or non-creative ads.
Creativity in the management process
Advertising is an element of the promotional mix and must be carefully managed
to maximize sales. Promotional management issues related to creativity include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
hiring, managing and motivating creative personnel;
understanding and stimulating the creative process;
developing creative strategy and tactics;
determining whether creative goals have been met;
planning creative advertising campaigns; and
facilitating a creative atmosphere in the organization.
Creativity as a societal process
Advertising has significant effects on society and some of the important ones are
directly related to creativity. Issues here include:
46
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 47
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
•
•
•
•
•
•
effects on popular culture;
advertising as commercial art;
cross-cultural differences in processing creative ads;
appeals to ‘out-group’ consumer movements (e.g. anti-consumption);
teaching advertising; and
using creative ads to educate consumers on important societal issues (such as
the dangers of drunk driving or how to reduce the risk of AIDS).
Creativity as a group process
Advertising creativity is usually a product of group collaboration and therefore it
is critical to assess how creative ideas are generated in a team setting. Issues here
include:
• effects of majority/minority influence;
• the role of personal/social identity;
• group creativity and the factors that facilitate or prevent group members from
producing creative ideas; and
• the effects of variables like rewards, promotion/prevention focus, mood, and
shifting of self-construal levels, on the production of creative ideas.
Creativity as a personal process
Advertising creativity is processed by individual consumers and can have personal
ramifications. Issues here include advertising as a source of:
•
•
•
•
•
consumer growth;
consumer creativity;
consumer self-actualization;
consumer self-concept; and
the impact of these individual difference variables on the effectiveness of creative ads.
A practitioner’s perspective
The processing/response propositions and general issues identified above are
deductive and speculative until empirical evidence can be examined. For an
inductive or experience-based perspective on ad creativity, a prominent advertising executive, Bob Boelter,7 was asked to comment on the theoretical propositions
and general issues in this article.
Mr Boelter’s conceptual observations include the identification of another type
of relevance (ad-to-brand), and another divergence factor (artistic expression).
Also, he suggests that divergence can be expected to play a lesser role when the
product has news value as creativity may distract from the story. He also identifies boundaries for when creativity may not be appropriate for the target market
47
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 48
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
(e.g. older consumers may prefer less creativity than younger consumers) or the
product (e.g. creativity may be inappropriate for medical or health-related products). He also questions whether the predicted interaction between involvement
and divergence will always hold – even when the consumer is involved, the marketplace is still very competitive so divergence can have an effect.
As for the broader issues, Mr Boelter notes that consumers are not only exposed
to many creative ads but that they are free and do not require much time so there
is a positive impact on society. Also, he notes that many brand managers are cautious and risk averse and thus prefer ads that are more familiar and comfortable –
an ‘anti-divergence’ attitude. ‘If a deeper understanding of the divergence factors
could help these people better appreciate the important role of creativity in advertising – that would be a big plus.’ A summary of Mr Boelter’s major thoughts and
criticisms are paraphrased in Table 4 and provide interesting examples and valuable ideas for consideration and future research.
Contributions to advertising theory
Conceptual focus on creativity in advertising
In advertising, there is a consistent theme that creative strategy and the level of
creativity in ads can be critical to success. Unfortunately, there is very little systematic research available to help in understanding, assessing, or implementing
creativity in advertising. While promising perspectives sometimes appear in academic conferences (e.g. Broyles, 2000; Clow and Baack, 2001; Frazer, 2002), there
is little systematic overlap among them. To help address these problems, this
research first focused on defining creativity by tracing its conceptual and empirical roots in psychology. The broader conceptual definition offered should help
orient future research toward creativity’s key determinants: divergence and relevance. Next, the major divergence factors were identified, explained and exemplified in Table 3. By focusing on divergence, this article provided new details about
its complex nature and specific determinants.
The lack of past conceptual development on ad creativity has caused problems
for those involved in creative endeavors and also marketing managers who must
somehow evaluate the extent to which creative strategy is being achieved.
Advertising is a prime example where the ‘creativity’ of a proposed ad campaign
must be assessed in relation to the objectives specified in the creative strategy.
However, this has been a difficult task for advertisers who have relied on measures
of ad divergence (usually one-dimensional) that do not reflect the full array of factors developed in Table 3. This is theoretically and managerially important
because some types of divergence may be able to achieve a specific creative strategy better than an alternative type of divergence.
48
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 49
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Table 4
A practitioner’s perspective
Issues related to
advertising creativity
Relevance:
1. Ad-to-consumer
2. Brand-to-consumer
Comments from Bob Boelter7
There should probably be a third type: ad-to-brand relevance,
which would reflect the level of coordination between the
execution elements and the brand elements of the ad. I have
found it to be very challenging to build a good creative strategy
that is still closely related to the brand. I think a good example
of this is the recent AFLAC® commercials where name
recognition is the focus but it has been achieved creatively.
Note that AFLAC is now putting little message points into the
commercials. This is consistent with the idea that different
creative strategies are needed as the goals of the advertising
campaign change.
The divergence factors
I would consider another factor called ‘artistic expression’.
There are many ways an ad can be artistic other than through
‘richness and colorful imagery’. Photography, lighting, design and
layout, editing and the other elements of the ad can achieve a
level of artistry when done effectively.
Flexibility
A good example of this was the Bob Dole and Britney Spears
Pepsi® ads.
Unusual perspective
A good example of this is the Chevy Trucks® campaign where
the trucks are enormous and out of scale with the rest of the
background.
Originality
The new Las Vegas ads represent a totally different approach
than the family-oriented campaign they had been using. The new
tagline is ‘what happens here stays here’.
Exceptions to this generalization would be when the product has
news value. In these situations excessive divergence will only
take away from the story. An example would be when
Polaroid® cameras developed instant picture technology. The
demonstration of the technology was the key, excessive
divergence would have interfered with the message.
Divergent ads tend to
produce more favorable
consumer processing
and response
Another example might be certain product categories where
creativity would be deemed inappropriate. For example, medical
products, utilities, or providers of essential services typically
want to stick to the straight facts and might consider divergence
to be negative.
Divergence on execution
elements will create more
favorable ad response
This is generally true but you must consider the target market –
if the consumer does not relate to, or care about, the ad
strategy they will not take the time to consider it. Also, it is not
unusual to find creative talent doing creative work just for the
sake of creativity and this is probably some of the least effective
divergence.
continues
49
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 50
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Table 4 (cont.)
Issues related to
advertising creativity
The correspondence
effect
The predicted interaction
between involvement
and divergence
Resistance to ad
wear-out
Memory effects of
divergent ads
What is the relationship
between creativity and
production value
The relationship between
creativity and the
management process
The effects of creativity
on society
Creative ads that do
not stimulate sales
50
Comments from Bob Boelter7
I have definitely observed that different groups of people have
different levels of creativity and divergence. For example, we
have had clients who target working-class consumers and tell us
not to use clever double entendre meanings because it would be
ineffective and interfere with the message getting through.
Similarly, I’ve worked with engineers and we are in ‘different
worlds’ in terms of the divergent production system.
I am not sure that this proposition will always hold. Even if the
consumer is highly involved in the product, the market place is
still very competitive. With all the stimuli shouting for the
consumers’ attention I think that divergence can still be effective
even when involvement is high – at least in some circumstances.
I tend to agree that divergent ads will resist wear-out with the
exception of some types of humor. If the ad’s humor is charming
or endearing it can be replayed with effectiveness. However,
slapstick, ‘goofy’ ads, or ‘one note’ jokes typically do not wear
well in-market from my experience. One example of this is the
current Di-Tech® campaign which was funny at first, but has
worn thin on me.
I suspect that divergence would have the greatest impact on
unaided brand recall as compared to aided recall or recognition
measures.
Production value is usually related to overall production cost and
in my experience the single most important determinant of
production cost is lighting. Television commercials today have so
many cuts and every scene has to be lit the exact same way for
continuity. I like to define production value as ‘polishing out
distractions’. Talent, editing and postproduction also influence
production value.
My experience suggests that many brand managers and client
representatives are cautious when it comes to divergence.
Often they avoid risks and prefer what is familiar and
comfortable – you could think of this as an ‘anti-divergence’
attitude. If a deeper understanding of the divergence factors
could help these people better appreciate the important role of
creativity in advertising – that would be a big plus.
I definitely agree that consumers are exposed to many creative
stimuli via advertising. And it’s free and doesn’t take a lot of
time. I do believe this has a positive impact on the general level
of creativity in society and that is a good thing.
An example of this might be the Taco Bell® Chihuahua dog
commercials. They tested very popular with audiences but sales
did not respond. Once the commercials were removed, sales
started trending upward again. Maybe a small dog was not a
good association for selling tacos.
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 51
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Effects of divergence on consumer processing
Past research has not addressed how creativity, especially divergence, influences
the processing and persuasiveness of advertising. This article attempts to fill this
gap by formulating a total of 18 preliminary propositions regarding how divergence and creativity affect ad processing and response. Another problem with past
research was the use of many different variables to represent relevance/effectiveness depending on the focus of the particular study. In this article, the processing/response model of MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) was used to clarify and
organize past research as well as to articulate the propositions. The resulting
hypotheses represent some of the most detailed treatment yet as to how ad
creativity achieves its effects.
Ad relevance
Although ad relevance was not the focus of this article, important issues involving
it were examined. After conceptually defining relevance we identified two ways
that ads could achieve it (i.e. through an ad-to-consumer link or a brand-toconsumer link). This is important because different types of relevance (and
divergence) may produce different processing and response from consumers as
suggested in some of the propositions.
Creativity as an interaction between divergence and relevance
An interaction effect was predicted between relevance and divergence such that
ads containing both features will be significantly more effective. This represents an
important area for future research and highlights the need to better understand
the complex relationship between the two types of relevance and the 14 different
types of divergence listed in Table 3.
Basis for developing scales to measure ad creativity
A major implication from this study is that the 14 divergence factors and two
relevance factors can be used to develop scales to measure perceived ad creativity.
Development of such scales would allow advertising researchers to investigate
how divergent properties of marketing stimuli affect consumer processing and
response. This is considered critical because the advances in understanding how
consumers process and respond to persuasive messages has not yet been forcefully
applied to the area of creativity – despite its manifest importance in generating
marketplace success.
Scales could be developed to assess the 14 divergence factors delineated here
which could then be used by consumers, marketing managers, or expert judges to
assess the divergence of a proposed ad or campaign. The development of such
scales also would be beneficial to areas beyond advertising such as assessment of
new products or management techniques (Andrews and Smith, 1996). In addi-
51
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 52
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
tion, creativity in advertising scales need to include measures of ad-to-consumer
relevance and brand-to-consumer relevance. Indeed, precise measures of the
different types of relevance and divergence would add significantly to our ability
to test ad creativity in the laboratory and in the market.
In addition, the divergence components in Table 3 can serve as a guide for ways
to make an ad divergent. This would be a useful tool in brainstorming sessions to
make sure ideas are considered from the full set of divergence components.
A general theory of creativity in advertising
After examining consumer processing and response issues in detail the discussion
moved up in level of abstraction to help identify the general conceptual space of
‘creativity in advertising’. Five major paradigms were identified (creativity in
communications, management, society, groups and individuals). This model
suggests that advertising is a major field of application for creativity. For example,
modern consumers are exposed to many creative advertisements each day –
indeed this is probably a major creative interface for many people in economically
advanced societies. Thus, the general theory section identifies a number of
different ways that advertising creativity is important. Hopefully, as marketing
researchers develop and refine creativity in advertising theory, it will come to be
included in broader reviews of the construct (e.g. Handbook of Creativity
[Sternberg, 1999]).
Practitioner’s perspective
This article also provided observations on the theoretical propositions and issues
from an experienced advertising executive, summarized in Table 4. There are a
variety of implications here including the addition of ad-to-brand relevance, a
new divergence factor, situations where creativity may be inappropriate, and
boundaries for some of the predicted effects.
Future research
Another contribution of the conceptualization presented here is that it identifies
specific areas for future research. This platform for future explorations is needed
due to the current paucity of research on advertising creativity.
Research on the divergence factors First, little is known about how the divergence
factors operate in marketing settings. For example, there has been speculation in
the trade papers as to why award-winning ads sometimes do not stimulate sales
effectively. The divergence factors can be used to investigate the hypothesis that
award-winning ads tend to rate high in imagination and originality but low on
relevance while ads that generate more favorable sales impact should possess
divergence and relevance.
The divergence factors developed here also make it possible to study how
52
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 53
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
ad creativity influences attention, processing depth, ad/brand memory, selfreferencing, ad attitudes, and brand attitudes. It also will be possible to examine
which factors are most important (and when), and which factors are best at
achieving specific communication-effects goals. For example, it could be
hypothesized that the divergence factors best at influencing motivation to process
and attention value might be different from the factors that are most successful at
influencing depth of processing or purchase intentions. In addition, there is the
issue of the magnitude of divergence – how much divergence is needed to achieve
creativity and when does the degree of divergence become too extreme? It can
also be expected that perceptions of creativity are influenced by factors such as
consumer age, gender, education and culture.
How long does divergence produce its effects? In the marketplace, ads are
repeated frequently and the effects of divergence will likely show a wear-out effect.
That is, the creativity effects could be expected to decline as consumers repeatedly
view the ad and become accustomed to what was once divergent. While divergent
ads are expected to resist wear-out longer than non-divergent ads, these effects
will not last indefinitely and may vary by the type of divergence. Indeed, it is
possible that some of the advertising wear-out function is due to the short life of
the divergence component.
Research on processing and response Future research is also necessary to examine
the research propositions advanced in this article. Experiments can be designed to
manipulate the key independent variables and interaction effects can be examined
(like those predicted for involvement).
Research on macro issues Research is also needed on how cultural differences
may impact the processing and effects of ad creativity. What cross-cultural differences exist in the effectiveness of creative ads? For instance, do Asian consumers
and American consumers value different factors of divergence to a varying extent,
or attach different importance to divergence and relevance? Other demographic
variables that could be investigated as possible moderators of ad creativity effects
are gender differences and generational differences.
General theory issues The broader issues identified in the general theory section
also represent fertile ground for future research. These issues cross disciplines and
will require multiple perspectives and research methods for triangulation to
occur. Research involving these five areas can help to gain a deeper understanding
of fundamental creativity issues including: what is ad creativity, what are the
effects of creative ads, and how to generate creative ads.
Research opportunities Finally, there are many mature research areas in advertising that continue to attract the attention of new researchers. Ad creativity is an
important frontier that has barely been examined by marketing scholars and
therefore possesses significant unexplored territory.
53
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 54
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Conclusion
Creativity is sometimes considered the ‘artistic’ side of marketing/advertising
that is difficult to measure and assess. Some marketing executives wisely subcontract the creative function to specialists outside the firm (ad agencies, creative
boutiques, etc.) but ultimately they must somehow determine if creative goals are
being achieved. A conceptual understanding of ad creativity is required before this
important goal can be realized.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Bob Boelter, Scott B. MacKenzie, William K. Darley, Laura
Buchholz, Daniel C. Smith, Jonlee Andrews, Chuck Lindsey, Huifang Mao, Shelly Jain,
three anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their contributions to this research.
Notes
1 The authors thank William K. Darley for his contribution to this table.
2 The authors thank Scott B. MacKenzie for this observation.
3 Consumers are ‘involved’ if the ad contains brand or non-brand elements that are
‘personally relevant’.
4 The authors thank Scott B. MacKenzie for this observation.
5 Their model includes three components: internal confluence (similarity across executions within a campaign), external confluence (similarity with advertising concepts of
similar products), and imaginativeness.
6 While academics valued high internal confluence most, high imaginativeness second
and high external confluence third, creative professionals valued high imaginativeness
first, followed by low external confluence and low internal confluence.
7 Bob Boelter is Chairman of Boelter & Lincoln Marketing Communications. Mr
Boelter received a BS in art (1968) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
served as principal creative director and art director for advertising agencies in
Milwaukee, Chicago and Madison. Currently, Boelter & Lincoln bills US$28 million
annually with offices in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin. The agency serves
marketers of consumer services with marketing, research, advertising and public
relations. The agency has significant experience in tourism, hospitality and recreation
and has won numerous advertising awards for creative and ethical business practices.
References
Amabile, T. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Veclay.
Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc.
Andrews, J. and Smith, D. (1996) ‘In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors
Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs of Mature Products’, Journal of
Marketing Research 33 (May): 174–87.
Baer, J. (1993) Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-Specific Approach. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berlyne, D.E. (1971) Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
54
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 55
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Besemer, S. and O’Quinn, K. (1986) ‘Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test
of a Judging Instrument’, Journal of Creative Behavior 20(2): 115–26.
Besemer, S. and Treffinger, D.J. (1981) ‘Analysis of Creative Products: Review and
Synthesis’, Journal of Creative Behavior 15(3): 158–78.
Broyles, S.J. (2000) ‘Diversity and its Relation to the Creative Execution in Magazine
Advertising’, in Mary A. Shaver (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the
American Academy of Advertising, pp. 116–18. East Lansing, MI: American Academy
of Advertising.
Cattell, R.B. (1957) Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Clow, K., Roy, D. and Baack, D. (2001) ‘Content Analysis of Creative Message Strategies
in Service Advertisements’, in Charles R. Taylor (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2001
Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 48–55. Villanova, PA:
American Academy of Advertising.
Craik, F. and Lockhart, R. (1972) ‘Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory
Research’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (December): 671–84.
Duke, L. (2000) ‘Like an Idea, Only Better: How Do Advertising Educators and
Practitioners Define and Use the Creative Concept?’, in Mary A. Shaver (ed.) The
Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 114–15.
East Lansing, MI: American Academy of Advertising.
Duke, L. and Sutherland J. (2001) ‘Toward a Confluence Model of Advertising Creative
Concepts’, in Charles R. Taylor (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the
American Academy of Advertising, p. 231. Villanova, PA: American Academy of
Advertising.
Faison, E.W. (1977) ‘The Neglected Variety Drive: A Useful Concept for Consumer
Behavior’, Journal of Consumer Research 4 (December): 172–5.
Finger, F.W. and Mook, D.G. (1971) ‘Basic Drives’, Annual Review of Psychology 22:
1–38.
Finke, R.A. (1995) ‘Creative Realism’, in Steven M. Smith, Thomas B. Ward and Ronald
A. Finke (eds) The Creative Cognition Approach, pp. 303–26. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Frazer, C. (2002) ‘Seven Creative Strategy Alternatives Revisited’, in Charles Taylor
(ed.) The Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising,
p. 180. Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising.
Getzels, J.W. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975) ‘From Problem Solving to Problem
Finding’, in I.A. Taylor and J.W. Getzels (eds) Perspectives in Creativity, pp. 90–116.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Ghiselin, B. (1963) ‘Ultimate Criteria for Two Levels of Creativity’, in C.W. Taylor and
F. Barron (eds) Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, pp. 30–43. New
York: Wiley.
Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C. (1984) ‘Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four
Levels’, Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June): 581–92.
Greenwald, A.G. and Banaji, M.R. (1995) ‘Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Selfesteem, and Stereotypes’, Psychological Review 102 (January): 4–27.
Guilford, J.P. (1950) ‘Creativity’, The American Psychologist 14: 444–54.
Guilford, J.P. (1956) ‘The Structure of Intellect’, Psychological Bulletin 53: 267–93.
Guilford, J.P. (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J.P. (1968) Intelligence Creativity, and their Educational Implications. San
Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.
55
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 56
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Haberland, G. and Dacin, P.A. (1992) ‘The Development of a Measure to Assess
Viewers’ Judgments of the Creativity of an Advertisement: A Preliminary Study’,
Advances in Consumer Research 19: 817–25.
Harmon, L.R. (1963) ‘The Development of a Criterion of Scientific Competence’, in
C.W. Taylor and F. Barron (eds) Scientific Creativity: Its Development and Recognition,
pp. 44–52. New York: Wiley.
Hunt, J.V. (1963) ‘Motivation Inherent in Information Processing and Action’, in O.J.
Harvey (ed.) Motivational and Social Interaction – Cognitive Determinants, pp. 35–94.
NY: Ronald Press.
Jackson, P.W. and Messick, S. (1965) ‘The Person, the Product, and the Response:
Conceptual Problems in the Assessment of Creativity’, Journal of Personality 33
(March–December): 309–29.
Kim, H.G. and Leckenby, J. (2002) ‘Creative Factors in Interactive Advertising’, in
Avery M. Abemethy (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the American
Academy of Advertising, pp. 58–63. Auburn, AL: American Academy of Advertising.
Kover, A.J. (1995) ‘Copywriters – Implicit Theories of Communication: An
Exploration’, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (March): 596–611.
Kover, A.J., Goldberg, S.M. and James, W.L. (1995) ‘Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An
Integrating Classification for Advertising’, Journal of Advertising Research 35
(November/December): 29–38.
Krugman, H.E. (1965) ‘The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without
Involvement’, Public Opinion Quarterly 29: 349–56.
Krugman, H.E. (1971) ‘Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement’, Journal of
Advertising Research 11 (February): 3–9.
Laczniak, R.N. and Muehling, D.D. (1993) ‘The Relationship Between Experimental
Manipulations and Tests of Theory in an Advertising Message Involvement Context’,
Journal of Advertising 22 (September): 59–74.
MacInnis, D.J. and Jaworski, B.J. (1989) ‘Information Processing from Advertisements:
Toward an Integrative Framework’, Journal of Marketing 53 (October): 1–23.
MacInnis, D.J., Rao, A.G. and Weiss, A.M. (2002) ‘Assessing When Increased Media
Weight of Real-World Advertisements Helps Sales’, Journal of Marketing Research 39
(November): 391–407.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.J. (1986) ‘The Role of Attitude toward the Ad
as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations’,
Journal of Marketing Research 23 (May): 130–43.
MacKinnon, D.W. (1962) ‘The Nature and Nurture of Creative Talent’, American
Psychologist 17(7): 484–95.
McQuarrie, E.F. and Mick, D.M. (1992) ‘On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry
into Advertising Rhetoric’, Journal of Consumer Research 19 (September): 180–97.
Maddi, S.R. (1968) ‘The Pursuit of Consistency and Variety’, in R.P. Abelson (ed.)
Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, pp. 267–74. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Martin, M. (1995) ‘Do Creative Commercials Sell?’ Campaign 22 (September): 34–5.
Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality (2nd Ed.). New York: Harper.
Maslow, A.H. (1971) The Farthest Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin
Books.
Mishra, S., Umesh, U.N. and Stern, Jr. D.E. (1993) ‘Antecedents of the Attraction Effect:
An Information Processing Approach’, Journal of Marketing Research 30 (August):
331–49.
56
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 57
A theory of creativity in advertising
Robert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang
Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988) ‘Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation’, Psychological Bulletin 103 (January): 27–43.
Nissen, H.W. (1951) ‘Phylogenetic Comparison’, Handbook of Experimental Psychology.
New York: John Wiley.
Ornstein, P.A. and Trabasso, T. (1974) ‘To Organize is to Remember – the Effects of
Instructions to Organize and Recall’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 103(5):
1014–18.
Peracchio, L.A. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1994) ‘How Ambiguous Cropped Object in Ad
Photos Can Affect Product Evaluations’, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June):
190–204.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T and Schumann, D. (1983) ‘Central and Peripheral Routes to
Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement’, Journal of Consumer
Research 10 (September): 135–46.
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1999) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current
Status and Controversies’, in Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (eds) Dual Process
Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Pieters, R., Rosbergen, E. and Wedel, M. (1999) ‘Visual Attention to Repeated Print
Advertising: A Test of Scanpath Theory’, Journal of Marketing Research 36 (November): 424–38.
Reid, L.N., King, K.W. and DeLorme, D.E. (1998) ‘Top-Level Agency Creatives Look at
Advertising Creativity Then and Now’, Journal of Advertising 27 (Summer): 1–15.
Rogers, E.M. (1957) ‘Personality Correlates of the Adoption of Technological Practices’,
Rural Psychology 22: 267–8.
Shavitt, S. (1990) ‘The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions’, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 26 (March): 124–48.
Sobel, R.S. and Rothenberg, A. (1980) ‘Artistic Creation as Stimulated by Superimposed
Versus Separated Visual Images’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39
(November): 953–61.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999) The Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stewart, D.W. and Furse, F. (1984) ‘Analysis of the Impact of Executional Factors on
Advertising Performance’, Journal of Advertising Research 24: 23–6.
Tellis, G.J. (1998) Advertising and Sales Promotion Strategy. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Thorson, E. and Zhao, X. (1997) ‘Television Viewing Behavior as an Indicator of
Commercial Effectiveness’, in William D. Wells (ed.) Measuring Advertising
Effectiveness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Torrance, E.P. (1972) ‘Predictive Validity of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking’,
Journal of Creative Behavior 6(4): 236–52.
Torrance, E.P. (1987) Using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking to Guide the Teaching
of Creative Behavior. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E.P. (1988) ‘Creativity as Manifest in Testing’, in J.R. Sternberg (ed.) The
Nature of Creativity, pp. 43–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1990) The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Wells, W.D. (1989) Planning for R.O.I.: Effective Advertising Strategy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Wiley.
57
02_MT 4/1
6/3/04
2:12 PM
Page 58
marketing theory 4(1/2)
articles
Wells, W., Burnett, J. and Moriarty, S. (1995) Advertising Principles and Practice.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zinkhan, G.M. (1993) ‘Creativity in Advertising: Creativity in the Journal of Advertising’, Journal of Advertising 22 (June): 1–4.
Robert E. Smith is Professor of Marketing at Indiana University, Kelley School of
Business. Address: Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN
47405, USA. [email: smith5@indiana.edu)
Xiaojing Yang is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University, Kelley School of Business.
58